5 ms·

I think that the idea is nobel but it misses a core concept of how users interact with their platforms, they don't want to pay money. Sometimes I see comments

I think that the idea is nobel but it misses a core concept of how users interact with their platforms, they don't want to pay money. Sometimes I see comments on HN about how that person would gladly pay for an ad free version of the service but experiences have shown over and over that it just doesn't work.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago
> users...don't want to pay money I don't think this was as obvious in 2012.
- olympus 9y ago
  Yes it was. The options were to pay money for a lower populated platform (App.net), vs a higher-populated platform for free. The only benefit was that App.net claimed it was going to be nicer with your data. Everything else was worse. App.net couldn't compete against Twitter with only one pro and several cons. It's only hope was to survive long enough until Twitter's investors got tired of sinking money into it and pulled the plug. Unfortunately for App.net Twitter managed to turn a profit.
- mehrdada 9y ago
  It was just as obvious in 2012, if not more. It's just that they worked hard on pulling off a small but surprising crowdfunding/preorder-like campaign among a specific group right after they were pissed at Twitter for restricting client apps (betrayal) and basically pulling the plug on the protocol idea in favor of an ad business. Their approach, however, by building a paid Twitter clone as the "killer app" of their platform, which isn't a very useful use case when you have free Twitter, awfully reminds me of what Dennis Ritchie wrote in Anti-Foreword of Unix Haters Handbook[1]: "Your sense of the possible is in no sense pure: sometimes you want the same thing you have, but wish you had done it yourselves; other times you want something different, but can't seem to get people to use it" They really wished they owned Twitter, and they did it their way, although if they really were Twitter owners, they too would have likely opted for the proven, lucrative, and more straightforward ad business over the protocol business at that point. Criticism aside, it was probably worth trying anyway, and the fact that they raised funds in their initial campaign ($5/user if I remember correctly) was not easy to pull off and surprising. [1]: https://simson.net/ref/ugh.pdf https://simson.net/ref/ugh.pdf
- spullara 9y ago
  It was obvious ever since the internet started.
hbosch 9y ago
App.net was something I loved paying for, though. It came with a block of cloud storage, an ad free social network, an API for devs to build on top of... those three ingredients alone were fertile ground for developers to make some very engaging, unique apps. It also felt much more communal. I was a fan and definitely miss App.net
flukus 9y ago
Normally that would be the end of the story. Users won't pay for something, there is no market and in turn there is no product. VC money distorts this, they create the product get their users and then try to monetize it. By this point the only thing of value (defined as something people are willing to pay for) they have is their users data. Take out the VC money and these problems might solve themselves.
exclusiv 9y ago
So true. And as much as techies think people care about their privacy they care more about free. Everyone's on the build on the blockchain, distributed this, privacy centric next gen app kick but these things don't move the needle, they're just nice to haves. I like the riches in niches but even there it's increasingly more challenging getting a share of wallet because consumers are getting incredible value from services like Netflix/Spotify/Office/etc. They've been programmed for free or subsidized.
dingaling 9y ago
The problem with offering any free tier is that it lets people keep their wallet in their pocket. It's impossible to determine but as a thought experiment imagine if the only way to subscribe to Facebook after the .edu phase was to pay $1 / £1 / €1 per year. Overall revenue would be lower but they wouldn't have to maintain enormous sales and ad-tech teams. app.net flunked IMHO because noone understood what it was, not because it required payment.
stesch 9y ago
I wanted to give app.net my money but they didn't want it. We Germans aren't big fans of paying by card. I asked them if the offer other payment methods. A year later they offered BitCoin. No, thank you.

JumpCrisscross 9y ago

> users...don't want to pay money I don't think this was as obvious in 2012.

olympus 9y ago
Yes it was. The options were to pay money for a lower populated platform (App.net), vs a higher-populated platform for free. The only benefit was that App.net claimed it was going to be nicer with your data. Everything else was worse. App.net couldn't compete against Twitter with only one pro and several cons. It's only hope was to survive long enough until Twitter's investors got tired of sinking money into it and pulled the plug. Unfortunately for App.net Twitter managed to turn a profit.
mehrdada 9y ago
It was just as obvious in 2012, if not more. It's just that they worked hard on pulling off a small but surprising crowdfunding/preorder-like campaign among a specific group right after they were pissed at Twitter for restricting client apps (betrayal) and basically pulling the plug on the protocol idea in favor of an ad business. Their approach, however, by building a paid Twitter clone as the "killer app" of their platform, which isn't a very useful use case when you have free Twitter, awfully reminds me of what Dennis Ritchie wrote in Anti-Foreword of Unix Haters Handbook[1]: "Your sense of the possible is in no sense pure: sometimes you want the same thing you have, but wish you had done it yourselves; other times you want something different, but can't seem to get people to use it" They really wished they owned Twitter, and they did it their way, although if they really were Twitter owners, they too would have likely opted for the proven, lucrative, and more straightforward ad business over the protocol business at that point. Criticism aside, it was probably worth trying anyway, and the fact that they raised funds in their initial campaign ($5/user if I remember correctly) was not easy to pull off and surprising. [1]: https://simson.net/ref/ugh.pdf https://simson.net/ref/ugh.pdf
spullara 9y ago
It was obvious ever since the internet started.

hbosch 9y ago

App.net was something I loved paying for, though. It came with a block of cloud storage, an ad free social network, an API for devs to build on top of... those three ingredients alone were fertile ground for developers to make some very engaging, unique apps. It also felt much more communal. I was a fan and definitely miss App.net

flukus 9y ago

Normally that would be the end of the story. Users won't pay for something, there is no market and in turn there is no product. VC money distorts this, they create the product get their users and then try to monetize it. By this point the only thing of value (defined as something people are willing to pay for) they have is their users data. Take out the VC money and these problems might solve themselves.

exclusiv 9y ago

So true. And as much as techies think people care about their privacy they care more about free. Everyone's on the build on the blockchain, distributed this, privacy centric next gen app kick but these things don't move the needle, they're just nice to haves. I like the riches in niches but even there it's increasingly more challenging getting a share of wallet because consumers are getting incredible value from services like Netflix/Spotify/Office/etc. They've been programmed for free or subsidized.

dingaling 9y ago

The problem with offering any free tier is that it lets people keep their wallet in their pocket. It's impossible to determine but as a thought experiment imagine if the only way to subscribe to Facebook after the .edu phase was to pay $1 / £1 / €1 per year. Overall revenue would be lower but they wouldn't have to maintain enormous sales and ad-tech teams. app.net flunked IMHO because noone understood what it was, not because it required payment.

stesch 9y ago

I wanted to give app.net my money but they didn't want it. We Germans aren't big fans of paying by card. I asked them if the offer other payment methods. A year later they offered BitCoin. No, thank you.